Report Inappropriate Comments

MyRhody, what is making people stay away from Warwick and RI is the lack of effective leadership and ineffective decision making. We are currently studying the bankruptcy of 38 Studios and a moral obligation to pay. Do people want to move to a state where they may be flushing $129 Million down the toilet to honor a moral obligation? The people tempted to move here must know they will be the ones to pay for it. They are also discussing throwing Millions in to the Superman building. This does not sound like a super idea to me. The people who bought it knew what they were getting themselves into, why should taxpayers have to bail them out?

I want to be clear, I didn't say going to all day K wasn't a good idea, in fact, it should have been done for all 39 cities and towns 10+ years ago when we had money to pay for it. Instead of investing in education, cities and towns all over the state made bad contracts costing taxpayers billions in the state and we are now at the point of going bankrupt. I agree that moving to all day K would attract potential residents, not at the cost of going bankrupt. mandating all day K does mean skyrocketing costs, the projections have already been done and it was reported here within the last year. Implementing it in Warwick would be a multimillion dollar investment alone and the maximum tax rate would not be enough to pay for it... that is if the schools received the full maximum tax increase currently allowed by state law, a tax increase the schools would see none of as evidenced historically over the last 4-5 years. The city raises the tax rate to the max each year and all of the increases go to the city side of the budget. (To be fair, one year they chose not to take the maximum but that is because they raised so much through lowering the car tax exemption. In the end, they got the same amount through 2 different taxes).

I stand by my statement earlier, "At a time when we should be reaching higher and trying to attract families to broaden the tax base and stabilize we will be telling people, actually screaming at them to STAY AWAY!” and also my statement regarding all day K, the state doesn't have the funds to support it. Only a few cities and towns offer all day K.

Regarding shutting down the administration building on Warwick Ave, I pushed to have the building vacated and closed several times without support from the other members of the school committee who were told by administration it could not happen without a huge cost. Much of the cost was due to IT being in the building and the lack of electrical infrastructure in other buildings. I even suggested they separate the departments into several different buildings and use technology to communicate. Administration told the SC that this plan would not work because they communicate constantly and needed to be together. I disagree and believe the building could be vacated and returned to the city.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the public must let them know how they feel and it should be about education for the community not about keeping jobs. The decisions should be made without emotion and the most logical decision with the correct information should be made.

Markyc, regarding #1 on your list, I would like to remind you that I was not on the committee when he was hired, it was prior to my arrival. One of the reasons I ran was because the school committee lead by the superintendent and the finance director had 2 consecutive years of deficits. (during my 4 years on the committee, there were no deficits, any surplus was used to pay back the prior deficits.) I did not vote for renew the previous superintendent in 2010 and was overridden by 3 other members who thought he did a good job and deserved a renewal. I publicly, disagreed but was outvoted. I did not believe he (or anyone) deserved anything without a proper review and a clear vision for the schools. I believe that he did not present a clear vision, he did not guide the short term committee or guide the long term committee that was re-instituted under his watch. He was clearly directed by the school committee to reform these committees and report back to the school committee. He did not do this. I did not vote to renew him in 2012. During my time there I wanted a superintendent with a clear vision for the schools and someone who could effectively lead us to that vision. He was clearly not that person to me and that is why I voted to non-renew him.

From: Schools need to make cuts, but it won’t be Gorton yet

Please explain the inappropriate content below.